I am sorry the post was deleted and for making the wrong assumption you saw it. I said please do not extrapolate my views to the Namibian populace as it wouldn't be fair to demonize a whole population because of one opinionated person.

I am not really wanting to argue with you. I had included these links http://hrw.org/doc/?t=usa . The only point I didn't make in the removed post was that of America's former segregation laws.

I could argue that America has more HR issues. You could argue that it's a larger country and that per capita Namibia is worse.

This is not a discussion of whose HR abuses are worse, the point I would like us to leave on which is in agreement with yours is that we ALL have them.

I agreed with you that Obama employed a little spin on his jumpshot. And you are right we are digressing. Since we are the last two on this blog it might be a good idea to keep up with the rest of the bloggers, but I see you have already been there. How many Dave's from Arizona can there be?

If you want to have the last word please feel free. I might disagree but won't reply.

I didn't see any other post other than the one asking to quote in full. I am not make excuses for the civil rights violations that have occurred throughout the history of the United States. I'm just pointing out that in constrast to human rights violations perpetrated in other world nations your comment that the United States, until late in the last century (ending in 1999), were some of the worst just does not hold water.

As far as the human rights violations that have occurred in Namibia the information is available in a United Nations Commission on Human Rights report. The report ranks world nations based on human rights violations. Namibia is not the worst. It does however rank much lower than the United States.

Albeit these points really do not apply to the discussion at large. The real issue is whether or not Obama has a valid understanding of world diplomacy. I personally do not believe he does. His answers to the question and the spin he used to discredit Clinton makes this even more apparent.

I did understand what you meant. I wish CNN hadn't removed my 2nd last post in which I had said that there is no justification for saying that Namibia has "one of the worst human rights records".

I had hoped you would read it because I also asked you to justify that statement. I think you must have read it because I expanded on the point which was that I was referring to the last century , which I see you responded to.

For the purposes of clarity I had also said that I was wrong in going so deep into the past and that despite agreeing with you that Obama may have put employed a little spin I still think he is the man to support.

P.S. I would ask CNN to please justify why you removed a legitimate comment from this blog but I am not sure I would get an answer. Please restore it.

The spin I was referring to is how Obama frames the argument. Again, the question was whether or not the President would or should meet with these rogue nations during the first year of their administration.

Obama is spinning Clinton's no answer as meaning she, if President, would never meet with the nations in question. She never said she would not meet with those nations at all. She said she would not meet with them during her first year in office. She would, however, work through third party channels and meet directly with those nations after the ground work is in place. Surprise! That's why there is a Secretary of State, to lay the ground work necessary for face to face meetings.

This is where the inexperience of Obama shines through.

If you will quote a person please quote in full. I did not just :

accuse the United States of having “…some of the most racist and anti-semetic views of any nation…”

. . . as your post suggested. My whole statement was as below.

"Until late in the last century Americans have held some of the most racist and anti-semetic views of any nation as expressed by terminology for various racial groups."

I was wrong in my spelling. I referred to the past not the present. Is this what you mean by "spin" ?

You make some interesting points...and opinions. I must say I find it odd, however, that you would chastise the United States based on human rights when your own country, Namibia, has one of the worst records of violations.

I find it even more odd that you would accuse the United States of having "...some of the most racist and anti-semetic views of any nation..." when Namibia has been struggling with the oppression of South Africa for decades.

A wise man once said, "first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Would it not be prudent to correct the situation in your own country before you take on the discressions of another?

You point regarding America as being "too geared to winning, to holding the ideals it embraces as unassailable and it frowns and looks down on the positions and values of others" makes no sense at all. If the United States' only interest is to "win" why would it support other world nations? Lest ye forget the United States has committed $15 billion dollars the help fight HIV/AIDS in other world contries...including Namibia. Even pharmaceutical companies are offering medications around the world at little or no cost. If the United States only cared about itself and its own interests those monies would have been spent domestically, the medications would have been sold at full retail, and your country would have been left to wallow in your own misery.

Based on your original post it is evident that you did not watch the YouTube debates. While I agree with your comment that Romney sounds as if the President rubber stamps the actions of his or her functionaries, your assertions regarding the functions of the President as a diplomat make little sense when taken in context. The discussion is not whether the President should ignore world countries and their various leaders.

The YouTube question was whether or not the President would meet with rogue nations during their first year in office. Clinton said no. Obama said yes. Obama has tried to spin his answer by alluding to the position that a no answer means Clinton, if President, would never talk to the nations in question. It is blantant spin and it would appear that people such as yourself have been taken in by it.

There are foreign policies in place that every country abides by. One of the basic issues of Namibia's foreigh policy is the health, well-being, and security of Namibia and surrounding nations. Why would this not apply to the United States as well?

When Hugo Chavez called George Bush satan before the United Nations would the United States be better off if Bush sat down with Chavez and discussed the matter? It's naive to think so and it is this point that Obama shows his inexperience. Chavez wanted to create a stir at the United Nations and it was right for President Bush to ignore the comment, in so doing discredit and devalue Chavez as a world leader.

Diplomacy goes much deeper and much more complicated than Obama makes it out to be.

My views are alien to many of you and inconsequential to your country's present quest for adequate and appropriate leadership. Your points are valid and impassioned. The sarcasm, which I'd realy call wit, was not lost on me. I am sure we will disagree as have most of the people in this CNN political ticker.

It is a puzzling time pieceing together millions of bits of information which will influence your ultimate choices. Wish you the best.

Some of my thoughts and sarcasms may have gotten lost in translation, but we can agree to disagree.

1. "What do you say?": It depends on whether you are talking about that particular issue or something else. If it is the viewpoint of "Death to all Americans" then you proceed from a position of inquiry. If it is something else which has no bearing on the viewpoint and vice-versa as I had mentioned earlier then you can discuss the issue albeit not entirely throwing caution to the wind.

2. "A bridge for sale perhaps?". I don't understand this point and it would not be prudent to guess.

3. "Do you rush into or have any talks with them?": If the point of talking is to try to avert their threats becoming actions wouldn't it make sense to pre-empt the speech and actually seek out middle or common ground? I think it might be more helpful than allowing paranoia and fear to fester.

4. "Based on what do you discuss?": Perhaps on the basis that you are entitled to hold differences of opinion and that you are also allowed to make attempts to breech them. You stick to the subjects you have agreed to discuss.

You last asked the question "How would you approach someone whose stated goal is to wipe you out and a close ally". Dare I suggest you first get "accurate" intelligence. No definitely and obviously you approach with caution. Not with a gun (economic or metallic) pointed at their head. Hardly diplomatic.

You are absolutely right in saying that there are some people who will hate you no mater what you do. You are right in that preparatory talks are often best. I don't think it correct to make generalizations about a people on the basis of a few idiosyncratic individuals political and religious.

" YOU CAN HOWEVER SECRETLY PUT OUT THE OLIVE BRANCH VIA DIPLOMATS TO GAUGE A FEEL FOR WHAT COULD BE A “COMMON GROUND” AND THEN AFTER THAT IS ACCOMPLISHED YOU SEND THE DIPLOMATS OVER TO MET IN A NEUTRAL AREA AND DISCUSS THOSE “COMMON GROUNDS” AND THE KILL AMERICANS AND KILL JEWS TALK IS FLATLY AND FIRMLY TOLD THAT IT WON’T BE TOLERATED. "

I disagree that you just tell people even dictators that viewpoints won't be tolerated. Don't dictate to dictators. America's Human rights record has only improved significantly in the last 50 years and you still aren't quite there yet. Until late in the last century Americans have held some of the most racist and anti-semetic views of any nation as expressed by terminology for various racial groups. You don't just tell people that is not on. . . you allow them to re-educate themselves by stating and trying to show the correctness of your position. If it takes decades for animosity to grow between nations eg USA and CUBA do you think that your "it won't be tolerated" approach will work. I think not. Aim to agree on a systematic climb-down from positions of antagonism. Did you listen to Raul Castro yesterday? He made a valid point about improving ties with America. If you didn't hear it look it up and tell me what you would do now that an olive branch has been offered. I could be wrong but your suggestion is that only America has olive branches. I think Obama would know what is the right thing to do.

The rest of the world has problems eg Africa has corruption, despotism and bad governance. The world doesn't deny it. America should not subscribe to the view that unless you toe the American line you are a bad man/woman. Possibly the only means of achieving success in negotiations with opponents is to attempt to see things from their perspective, I am not saying believe what they believe but look at things from all sides. Audi alterem partem. What is the point of buying self-improvement books from people like Steve Covey if you can't even enact some of his gems like Habit number 5 "Seek first to understand".

I agree that America has given more aid than most other countries and has offered itself in instances where others have feared to tread. That however is not the issue in this debate or in Osama's and Hilary's original discussion from which. . . sadly we are digressing.

To help you understand how others view America you could try reading a couple of books like Bill Blum's Rogue State. Now please live up to YOUR end of your unilateral offer and get on with the analysis of the rest of mankind.

Has been great discussing with you though. Apologies for the length.

He truly stands out from the others in my mind.

http://mikeelliottsblog.wordpress.com

- The New York times and CNN have endorsed me with their glowing coverage.

- Fox news finally loves me, proof, Rupert Murdoch held a fundraiser for me.

-The Clinton years were soo prosperous, when we left office, we gave up the house, the senate and the alot of governorships to republicans.

-I like making people feel good by telling them what they want to hear.I'm told its good for their health. Remember the twang i put on infront of black people.

-I'm the only one who can end the war in Iraq. I should know because i voted for it. And after finally taking 4 years to read the intelligence report,my experience tells me that what we need now is an exit strategy.

You make it sound like we are selfish, that is a liberally socialist mantra where they like to hammer conservatives by saying "well you have yours, so forget about everyone else".

News for you buddy, we give more aid and dropped more blood than any country in existense to help people who don't have as much or needed our assistance.

Does that sound like someone who doesn't care about everyone winning?

Nobody has done more to help everyone have a chance at winning than us.

How would you approach someone whose stated goal is to wipe you out and a close ally of yours, anyway other than I indicated?

For all this great country has done over the years for other countries in many ways and many times over, we still WILL ALWAYS have people that hate us no matter what it can be for religious, financial etc, etc reasons and all the diplomacy in the world will not change that.

I welcome your well thought out responses.

Let's see if Romney says the same thing tomorrow.

I'm sure by tomorrow Romney will have found a new position.

If I was Hillary, I wouldn't want someone who holds up bigoted signs to be defending me.

FLIP-FLOP-FLIP-FLOP-FLIP-FLOP-FLIP-FLOP

The trouncing I had meant was on legitimate bilateral agreements where America's full aspirations are not fully realised through negotiations. No one sanctions terrorist activities.

My point was that America is just too geared to winning, to holding the ideals it embraces as unassailable and it frowns and looks down on the positions and values of others. I still think that you have to cultivate the ability to engage and discuss being considerate of the positions of other parties no matter how disparate from your line of thinking.

No offence was intended. It wasn't great advice. Just an opinion.

Gee, Taka from Nambia, great advice...I have no idea why we were so uptight about 9/11 or any other terrorist attacks. We should let our guard down and just take the punches once in a while.

If you as a Presidential aspirant don't have the humility to recognize your enemy as a person worthy of talking to then 1.) You will never be able to avert atrocities like at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo because these kinds of imperialistic outlooks kind of cascade to your subordinates and country-men and 2.) you will never be able to talk your way out of a war although in your own skewed thinking your deputy might be able to, 3.) you shouldn't be running.

Talk to your enemy, respect what is worth respecting and reject the rest. SIMPLE. . . oh and be courteous whilst you do it. Stop talking about foreign leaders as if they were tainted meat. Not a one is unblemished.

It is easy to understand why heralds have always been revered throughout history because they always exemplify the type of humility, deportment and diplomacy that their monarchs failed to demonstrate. I suppose humility would be at variance with that notion of the divine right of Presidents.

I'd ask Tom what he'd say to his own question regarding "Death to all Americans and Jews"? Maybe you decide if what you are going to discuss actually has a bearing on this viewpoint or vice-versa. One could ask a question "What do you say to a president who wants you to disarm but keep all the nuclear warheads for himself?" Anyhow decide what limited area you are going to tackle and stick to it. Leave sex, politics and religion out of it. Does that help?

And Tom maybe if you analysed the world stage you might understand the roots of why some people don't like you (America that is). And maybe if you (America) were big enough you might do something about it . . . apart from the posturing, threats and use of the the military. For instance "ask them why" by telephone, teleconference, post, e-mail or . . . go fishing.

Shawnie perhaps going over to see eye-to-eye might avert a situation where you have an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye. If your name happens to Polyphemus this might be a situation you are keen on avoiding.

If America were more concerned with everyone winning as opposed to just America winning then you wouldn't be so uptight about being occasionally trounced.

Personally. I respect him for his willingness to sit down and talk. isn't that what diplomacy is?

What people are declaring as "arrogance" and the "old way" looks like practicality/reality. International relations are REALLY complicated. There are leaders with all manner of agendas and motives.

If several of our children or friends were captured and beaten, robbed or murdered by the leader of a local gang, would our reaction be to go visit at his house? Find out if we don't see eye to eye?

Foreign relations would have to be a case by case basis, and I would hope for a President that spent a lot more time on America, rather than trotting all over the globe scoring cheap political celebrity points with countries whose agenda is to trounce us as soon as they get the chance.

Just curious, do we offer them what is behind door number one, a bridge for sale perhaps.

You can however secretly put out the olive branch via diplomats to gauge a feel for what could be a "common ground" and then AFTER that is accomplished you send the diplomats over to met in a neutral area and discuss those "common grounds" and the KILL AMERICANS and KILL JEWS talk is flatly and firmly told that it WON'T be tolerated.

Once those words are repudiated by the leader, POSSIBLY the PRESIDENT would then take part in open dialogue between whatever country it is.

Bush has been hammered for both doing this and for not doing this.

It is so easy to blame us for all that is wrong, but think about it, we used nothing but diplomacy and our installations still got bombed over and over during the Clinton years (some of you laughingly talk about how much we were loved, tell that to all of the families that lost loved ones how loved we were).

I can't believe I am going to say this, but after really thinking about it, HILLARY is right, if someone is just going to say, kill, kill, kill, do you rush into or have any talks with them?

Based on what do you discuss?

We are not always the bad guy as some of you like to think, guess what, as grownups you need to realize no matter what you do, SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T LIKE YOU.

North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and Syria are nations that deserve respect? Should they be respected for the way they abuse and plunder their countries and people? These countries are getting MORE than the respect they "deserve." You think WE are messed up with the current administration, imagine if you were a citizen of ANY of the countries you mentioned. If it were that bad here you'd already be in prison or worse. Think about it.

Hmm...could that be part of our problem?

It's time for a change in Washington and not politics as usual!

No one cares about our presidential dignity but those who have benefited from it. Ask the average american what that means and I'm sure you'll get many different answers.

Nixon met with China less than 20 years after we were at war with them in Korea.

Reagan met with the Gorbachav's Evil Empire many times.

The only thing Romney is good at is being a greedy vulture, swindling millions from venture capital scams.

Your from toronto so do not worry about this. It is a slap in the face to send anyone but the President. Rogue nations done care about our third parties. Thats like saying a canadian should worry about this election.